Madras High Court
M/S.K.Kumar Wood Work vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 7 October, 2021
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.13174 of 2020
M/s.K.Kumar Wood Work,
13-A, Iyer Lay Out,
Back Side to Government School,
Singanallur,
Coimbatore – 641 005. ... Appellant
vs.
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying
to set aside the order dated 17.08.2020 made in W.P.No.392 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
The writ appeal has been filed challenging the order passed in
W.P.No.392 of 2020 dated 17.08.2020.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the
respondent/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for levying
damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said order had levied penal
damages against the appellant as per the provisions. It is open to the
petitioner to prefer an appeal against that order under Section 7-I of
the Act within a period of 60 days from the date of its receipt in terms
of Rule 7(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1997, before the Appellate Authority. However, the
petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate
Authority.
3. For better understanding, Section 7-I of the Act is extracted
hereunder:
“7-I. Appeals to Tribunal: (1) Any person aggrieved
by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
order passed by the Central Government or any authority,
under the proviso to sub-Section (3), or sub-Section (4),
of Section 1, or Section 3, or sub-Section (1) of Section
7-A, or Section 7-B [except an order rejecting an
application for review referred to in sub-Section (5)
thereof], or Section 7-C, or Section 14-B, may prefer an
appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order.
(2) Every appeal under sub-Section (1) shall be filed in
such form and manner, within such time and be
accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.”
4. It is also admitted that the proceedings of the
Commissioner dated 14.08.2019, which is impugned in the writ
petition, was delivered to the appellant in time. In fact, in paragraph 5
of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the appellant has
stated that he could not file an appeal before the Hon'ble CGIT under
Section 7-A of the EPF Act, 1952, since, it was barred by limitation. The
period prescribed for condoning the delay is 60 days, after the period of
original 60 days of limitation, is over. However, admittedly, there is a
delay of 78 days beyond the extended period of 60 days, the appellant
could not have gone before the Tribunal. The apprehension of the
appellant that the appeal would be dismissed, has also been stated in
the affidavit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
5. The Writ Court had placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada
vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited dated 06.05.2020
in Civil Appeal No.2413 of 2020, wherein, it has been held that the
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be
exercised by the High Court, assailing the orders passed by a Statutory
Authority, which was not appealed against within the prescribed period
of limitation. The said decision is also agreed by the learned counsel for
the appellant. What cannot be achieved by the appellant before the
Appellate Authority, he cannot be permitted to be achieved by invoking
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the Writ Appeal
cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
07.10.2021
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
To
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
rsi
W.A.No.1077 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.13174 of 2020
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
